A Hamrun man, whose trial by jury was dissolved last week, yesterday filed a constitutional application claiming that the judge's decision to dissolve the trial was in breach of his right to a fair trial.

The trial by jury of Brian Vella, 34, who is charged with the murder of an elderly couple, was dissolved last Wednesday after the presiding judge ruled there was the risk that reference to the evidence of Domnic Bonnici, who was deemed not competent to testify, could have led to a miscarriage of justice.

Vella's lawyers, Dr Anglu Farrugia and Dr Kris Busietta, yesterday filed a constitutional application against the Attorney General, the Courts' Registrar and the Police Commissioner asking the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction to declare the decision in breach of their client's right to a fair trial since the trial should have never been dissolved.

They also requested the court to rule that when the trial is appointed for hearing, within a reasonable time, Bonnici's testimony will remain inadmissible so that Vella would still be in the same procedural situation he was in last Wednesday.

In the application, Vella's lawyers explained that one of the witnesses in the trial was Police Commissioner John Rizzo who gave an overview of his involvement in the investigations and spoke about the version of the events as told to him by Bonnici.

Eventually, when the prosecution called Bonnici to the witness stand, the lawyers objected arguing that Bonnici was not a competent witness according to the law since he was an accomplice to charges brought against Vella and Bonnici's case had not yet been decided.

The next day the judge upheld the defence's objection but, instead of allowing the trial to go on without Bonnici's testimony, he dissolved the trial on the grounds that once Bonnici would no longer testify, the Police Commissioner's reference to Bonnici's admission was merely hearsay. The judge added that in the light of this unpredicted development there was the risk that the jurors would be negatively influenced by such testimony and this created the manifest danger of a miscarriage of justice since Vella's right to a fair trial could be prejudiced.

But in the application Vella's lawyers said that the judge's decision was the wrong one for two reasons. First, the judge should have stopped the Police Commissioner during his testimony and, secondly, the judge should have never dissolved the trial but could have guided jurors during the summing up.

The lawyers argued that the court's decision to dissolve the trial was in breach of Vella's right to a fair trial because it meant that Bonnici's testimony would be admissible during retrial.

Moreover, media coverage of Vella's trial could influence jurors during the retrial.